Dismissed¶183

Smt. Ratnavva W/O Mahadevappa Halikeri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2026WP/103457/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad, WP 103119/103174/103457 of 2021 (KLR-RES/KLR-RR/SUR), decided 23-01-2026 (K.S. Hemalekha, J). Certiorari against Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner Haveri orders dismissing appeals against decades-old mutation entries (1928/1929/1937) effected on varadhi relinquishment. Themes: condonation of delay, Section 5 Limitation Act, Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 appellate/revisional fora, mutation entries fiscal not determinative of title, civil court forum for title disputes, threshold limitation issue, no perversity/jurisdictional error, petitions dismissed with liberty to seek other remedies.

What did the court decide?

The mutation entries in question were effected and certified as early as 1928, 1929 and 1937 and have remained unquestioned for several decades. ¶170

Smt. Ratnavva W/O Mahadevappa Halikeri Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶183

Issue for consideration

Whether the revenue authorities were right in dismissing the appeals challenging the mutation entries solely on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay, without examining the legality and validity of the mutation entries. +2 more

¶159

Court's answer

The mutation entries in question were effected and certified as early as 1928, 1929 and 1937 and have remained unquestioned for several decades.

¶170

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the enormous and unexplained delay in approaching the revenue authorities.

¶171

Key takeaways

Revenue authorities are justified in rejecting appeals where the delay is gross, abnormal and defeats the very purpose of revenue administration.ratio¶172
Mutation entries are maintained for fiscal purposes and do not confer or extinguish title.ratio¶173
Any dispute relating to title necessarily falls within the domain of the competent Civil Court.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petitions (Art. 226/227, certiorari) by the legal heirs of an original landowner against orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri (RTS/AP/98, 99, 100/2014-15, dt. 06.07.2015, Annexure-C) and the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri (RTS:RA:CR-32, 33, 34:2015-16, dt. 08.07.2021, Annexure-F), whereby their appeals against mutation entries effected and certified in 1928, 1929 and 1937 pursuant to a varadhi (relinquishment) in favour of private respondents were dismissed solely for inordinate and unexplained delay, condonation having been sought under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Held: entries remained unquestioned for decades; no satisfactory explanation of delay was offered; rejection of appeals on gross, abnormal delay is justified; mutation entries serve fiscal purposes only, conferring or extinguishing no title, and title disputes belong to the competent Civil Court; the authorities committed no perversity or jurisdictional error, having confined themselves to the threshold limitation issue. Petitions dismissed; dismissal declared not to preclude resort to remedies otherwise available in law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:899 WP No. 103119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 103174 of 2021 WP No. 103457 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.103119 OF 2021 (KLR-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.103174 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) WRIT PETITION NO.103457 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

IN WP No.103119/2021:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. MAHADEVAPPA HALLIKERI AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶11

SMT. SHIVABASAVVA D/O. MAHADEVAPPA HALLIKERI AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶12

SHASHIDHAR S/O. MAHADEAPPA HALLIKERI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENT OF YELEKKI OWNI, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

MANJANNA E

¶15

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.16 12:54:03 +0530

¶16

(BY SRI. D.M.MALLI AND SRI. MANJUNATH A.KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATES P1; SRI. VINAY S.KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR P2 AND P3)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAVERI SUB-DIVSION, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC-D:899 WP No. 103119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 103174 of 2021 WP No. 103457 of 2021

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THE TASHILDHAR HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

¶25

CHANSABSAPPA BASAVENAPPA MAYAGATTI DECEASED BY HIS LRs.,

¶26

5A. ADIVEPPA CHANNABASAPPA MAYAGATTI AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR KANTESH ANJENAYYA TEMPLE, DYAMAVVAGUDI OWNI, KADARMANDALGI VILLAGE, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.

¶27

VEERAPPA S/O. ANDANEPPA HALLIKERI AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR PYATTI ANJENAYYA TEMPLE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI.

¶28

MALTESH S/O. NINGAPPA TUKKAMMANAVAR AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, R/O. AKKUR VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI.

¶29

YALUKOTTEPPA NINGAPPA TUKKAMMANAVAR AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AKKUR VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI.

¶30

SUSHILA RUDRAPPA HALLIKERI AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RTS:RA:CR-32:2015-16, DATED 08.07.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RTS/AP/100/2014-15 DATED 06.07.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC-D:899 WP No. 103119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 103174 of 2021 WP No. 103457 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

IN WP NO. 103174/2021:

¶37

BETWEEN:

¶38

SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. MAHADEVAPPA HALLIKERI AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶39

SMT. SHIVABASAVVA D/O. MAHADEVAPPA HALLIKERI AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶40

SHASHIDHAR S/O. MAHADEVAPPA HALLIKERI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENT OF YALEKKI OWNI, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI.

¶41

...PETITIONERS

¶42

(BY SRI. D.M.MALLI AND SRI. MANJUNATH A.KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATES P1; SRI. VINAY S.KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR P2 AND P3)

¶43

AND:

¶44

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶45

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581213.

¶46

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581213.

¶47

THE TASHILDHAR HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581213.

¶48

PUTTAPPA TIRAKAPPA YAGATTI DECEASED BY HIS LR'S

¶49

5A. ANDANEPPA PUTTAPPA YAGATTI

¶50

@ ANDANEPPA MAHADEVAPPA HALLIKERI, DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,

¶51

5A.1. VEERAPPA S/O. ANDANEPPA HALLIKERI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶52

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:899 WP No. 103119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 103174 of 2021 WP No. 103457 of 2021

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

R/O: NEAR PYATTI ANJENAYYA TEMPLE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI-581213.

¶55

5A.2. TIRAKAPPA ANDANEPPA HALLIKERI

¶56

DECEASED BY HIS LRs.,

¶57

5A.2.1. LALITA D/O. TIRAKAPPA HALLIKERI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,

¶58

R/O: 1351, 9^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS,

¶59

HAMPI NAGAR BUSTAND OPPOSITE,

¶60

^ND STAGE BENGALURU-560003.

¶61

5A.2.2. CHANNABASAVESH

¶62

S/O. TIRAKAPPA HALLIKERI,

¶63

AGE: 46 YEARS,

¶64

R/O: 1351, 9^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS,

¶65

HAMPI NAGAR BUSTAND OPPOSITE,^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560003.

¶66

5A.2.3. CHARAN S/O. TIRAKAPPA HALLIKERI

¶67

AGE: 44 YEARS,

¶68

R/O: 1351, 9^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS,

¶69

HAMPI NAGAR BUSTAND OPPOSITE,^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560003.

¶70

BASAVARAJ BUDIVANTAPPA GONNEMANAVAR AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI-581913.

¶71

MOHAN BUDIVANTAPPA GONNEMANAVAR DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,

¶72

7A. ANITA D/O. MOHAN GONNEMANAVAR AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,

¶73

7B. AKSHATA D/O. MOHAN GONNEMANAVAR AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,

¶74

7C. AMIT S/O. MOHAN GONNEMANAVAR AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,

¶75

7A TO C ARE RESIDENTS OF NEAR MILK DIARY, OM SRI GONI BASAVESHWAR NILAYA, KAVELETTU VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI-581913.

¶76

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:899 WP No. 103119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 103174 of 2021 WP No. 103457 of 2021

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

BHASKAR BUDIVANTAPPA GONNEMANAVAR AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSAPETE CIRCLE, BADIGER OWNI, HARIRA, TQ: HARIHARA, DIST: DAVANGERE-577001.

¶79

SHARADA YALLAPPA GONNEMANAVAR AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, KAVALETTU VILLAGE, TQ: RANNEBENNUR & DIST: HAVERI-581115.

¶80

SHIVAKUMAR YALLAPPA GONNEMANAVAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI-581213.

¶81

LOKESH YALLAPPA GONNEMANAVAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI-581213.

¶82

ARUNA MADHUSUDHAN SHETTY AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI-581213.

¶83

SAVITA TARKESHMURTHY GONNEMANAVAR AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI-581213.

¶84

RENUKA W/O. GURURAJ GONNEMANAVAR AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI-581213.

¶85

MEGHA D/O. GURURAJ GONNEMANAVAR AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI-581913.

¶86

DYAMAVVA DYAMAPPA BAGILAD AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI -571213.

¶87

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:899 WP No. 103119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 103174 of 2021 WP No. 103457 of 2021

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

BASAVVA W/O. DYAMAPPA BAGILAD AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI-581913.

¶90

LATIF SAB AMMINSAB KUNDI AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI-581213.

¶91

DYAMAVVA DYAMAPPA BAGILAD AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI-581213.

¶92

...RESPONDENTS

¶93

(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶94

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RTS:RA:CR-34:2015-16, DATED 08.07.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RTS/AP/98/2014-15, DATED 06.07.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶95

IN WP NO. 103457/2021:

¶96

BETWEEN:

¶97

SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. MAHADEVAPPA HALLIKERI AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶98

SMT. SHIVABASAVVA D/O. MAHADEVAPPA HALLIKERI AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶99

SHASHIDHAR S/O. MAHADEVAPPA HALLIKERI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENT OF YALEKKI OWNI, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI.

¶100

...PETITIONERS

¶101

(BY SRI. D.M.MALLI AND

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC-D:899 WP No. 103119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 103174 of 2021 WP No. 103457 of 2021

¶103

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

SRI. MANJUNATH A.KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATES P1; SRI. VINAY S.KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR P2 AND P3)

¶106

AND:

¶107

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.

¶108

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

¶109

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HAVERI SUB-DIVISION, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

¶110

THE TASHILDHAR, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI,

¶111

GUNDURAO BHIMRAO SHIRALKAR DECEASED BY HIS LRs.,

¶112

KRISHNAMURTI GUNDURAO SHIRALKAR DECEASED BY HIS LRs.,

¶113

RAMCHANDRA KRISHNAMURTI SHIRALKAR AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

¶114

LAXMAN KRISHNAMURTI SHIRALKAR AGE: 68 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS,

¶115

SRINIVAS KRISHNAMURTI SHIRALKAR AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

¶116

GURURAJ KRISHNAMURTI SHIRALKAR AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

¶117

5 TO 8 RESIDENTS OF ISHWAR GUDI OWNI, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA MATH HAVERI, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶118

¶119

NC: 2026:KHC-D:899 WP No. 103119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 103174 of 2021 WP No. 103457 of 2021

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

RAGHAVENDRA BHIMRAO KULKARNI DECEASED BY HIS LRs.,

¶122

RAMCHANDRA RAGHAVENDRA KULKARNI DECEASED BY HIS LRs.,

¶123

RAGHAVENDRA RAMCHANDRA KULKARNI AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MENAXI CHOWK, BHAGAWAT BUILDING, GODGOLE MALA, VIJAYPUR, TQ: & DIST: VIJAYPUR.

¶124

ANILKUMAR RAMCHANDRA KULKARNI AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SALERA OWNI, NEAR ARALIGIDA KATTI, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶125

NAGARAJ RAMCHANDRA KULKARNI AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAYANAG NILAYA, POLICE QUATERS, NEAR GRAMENA POLICE STATION, HANGAL ROAD, HAVERI, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶126

GOPANNA RAGHAVENDRA KULKARNI AGE: 90 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED HEADMASTER, R/O: (GURUKUL) SALERA OWNI, NEAR ARALIGIDA KATTI, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶127

DYAMAVVA DYAMAPPA BAGILAD AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶128

BASAVVA W/O. DYAMAPPA BAGILAD AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶129

DYAMAVVA DYAMAPPA BAGILAD AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶130

9 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:899 WP No. 103119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 103174 of 2021 WP No. 103457 of 2021

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

GUDLEPPA FAKIRAPPA DEEPAVALI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶133

SHIVANANAD FAKIRAPPA DEEPAVALI AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶134

MALLESHAPPA FAKIRAPPA DEEPAVALI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶135

UDACHAPPA FAKIRAPPA DEEPAVALI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶136

GUDLEPPA FAKIRAPPA DEEPAVALI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, HOSARETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶137

...RESPONDENTS

¶138

(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶139

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RTS:RA:CR-33:2015-16 DARED 08.07.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RTS/AP/99/2014-15 DATED 06.07.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶140

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶141

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶142

10 -

¶143

NC: 2026:KHC-D:899 WP No. 103119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 103174 of 2021 WP No. 103457 of 2021

¶144

HC-KAR

¶145

COMMON ORAL ORDER

¶146

These writ petitions are connected, interrelated and

¶147

arise out of similar facts and identical questions of law, hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this

¶148

common order.

¶149

The petitioners, who claim to be the legal heirs of the original landowner, have called in question the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner in their respective appeal proceedings, whereby the appeals filed by the petitioners challenging ancient mutation entries were dismissed on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay.

¶150

Brief Facts:

¶151

The case of the petitioners in brief is that their predecessor-in-interest had, several decades ago, submitted a varadhi before the revenue authorities relinquishing rights over the subject agricultural land in favour of the private respondents, pursuant to which,

¶152

11 -

¶153

NC: 2026:KHC-D:899 WP No. 103119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 103174 of 2021 WP No. 103457 of 2021

¶154

HC-KAR

¶155

mutation entries were effected and certified during the years 1928, 1929 and 1937 as the case may be. After the lapse of several decades, the petitioners filed appeals before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (“the Act 1964” for short), seeking to challenge the said mutation entries, along with the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶156

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the

¶157

appeals solely on the ground that the enormous delay running into several decades are not satisfactorily explained. The said orders were carried in appeals before the Deputy Commissioner, who, by the impugned orders, affirmed the reasoning of the Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶158

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the revenue authorities erred in dismissing the

¶159

12 -

¶160

NC: 2026:KHC-D:899 WP No. 103119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 103174 of 2021 WP No. 103457 of 2021

¶161

HC-KAR

¶162

appeals, without examining the legality and validity of the mutation entries. The impugned orders are mechanical and disclose non-application of mind. It is contended that the authorities failed to exercise their revisional and appellate jurisdiction in accordance with law. Mere delay ought not to have come in the way of examining and allegedly illegal mutation affecting valuable immovable property.

¶163

Per contra learned Additional Government

¶164

Advocate for respondents-State submits that the mutation entries are effected nearly 90 years ago, pursuant to voluntary relinquishment. The petitioners or their predecessor never questioned the entries during their lifetime and the revenue proceedings cannot be converted into a form of adjudication of civil dispute. By justifying the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are legal and submits that no interference is called for.

¶165

13 -

¶166

NC: 2026:KHC-D:899 WP No. 103119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 103174 of 2021 WP No. 103457 of 2021

¶167

HC-KAR

¶168

On careful consideration of the material on

¶169

record and the submissions made, this Court is of the considered view that no grounds are made out for interference for the following reasons:

¶170

(i) mutation entries in question are effected and certified as early as 1928, 1929 and 1937 and have remained unquestioned for several decades.

¶171

(ii) the petitioners have failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the enormous and unexplained delay in approaching the revenue authorities.

¶172

(iii) the revenue authorities are justified in rejecting appeals where the delay is gross, abnormal and defeats the very purpose of revenue administration.

¶173

(iv) Mutation entries are maintained for fiscal purpose and do not confer or extinguish title.

¶174

Any dispute relating to title necessary falls within the domain of the competent Civil Court.

¶175

14 -

¶176

NC: 2026:KHC-D:899 WP No. 103119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 103174 of 2021 WP No. 103457 of 2021

¶177

HC-KAR

¶178

The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy

¶179

Commissioner have confined the consideration to the question of limitation, which was the threshold issue and no perversity or jurisdictional error is shown. Accordingly this Court finds no arbitrariness, illegality or procedural impropriety in the impugned orders warranting interference.

¶180

For the foregoing reasons this Court pass the

¶181

following:

¶182

ORDER

¶183

i. The writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

¶184

ii. It is however, made clear that the dismissal of these writ petitions shall not preclude the petitioner from availing such remedies are available to them in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶185

Sd/-

¶186

JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶187

EM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt. Ratnavva W/O Mahadevappa Halikeri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ratnavva W/O Mahadevappa Halikeri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri. Siddaraj B.K. S/O B.K. Mukkanna, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sachin Dyavangouda Patil Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

Smt S Mahaboobjan Vs State of Karnataka

Nandish S/O Basappa Guddappanavar Vs the Managing Director and CEO

Smt. Ratnavva W/O. Mahadevappa Hallikeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Shadilal Chitram Sharma Vs the State of Karnataka